From the opening day of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) climate negotiations in Copenhagen, also known as Conference of Parties (COP) 15, the relevance of a key threshold metric—the 2 °C maximal warming limit, or “guardrail”—has repeatedly been called into question by delegates of COP member states which are particularly vulnerable to climate change. The dispute has contributed to a significant split among the primary bloc of developing countries, and has highlighted an increased focus on climate adaptation strategies, in addition to emissions reductions, during the talks.

The prevailing position up to now is that society may be able to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change by limiting average warming of the Earth’s lower atmosphere to no more than 2 ºC (3.6 ºF) above pre-industrial temperatures. A maximum concentration of 450 ppm carbon dioxide (~550 ppm CO2 equivalent) in the Earth’s atmosphere is commonly cited as the limit at which average temperatures can be held at 2 ºC, and many emissions reduction proposals are based upon these two “upper bounds” targets.

The >2 Degree Target

The 2 ºC maximal warming limit was cited at the UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972, and revisited several decades later, in 1995, by the Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Globale Unweltveränderungen (WGBU), Germany’s national advisory council on climate change. The Council of European Ministers adopted the limit as policy on behalf of the European Union in 1996, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) subsequently employed the limit as context in its Third Assessment Report (TAR), published in 2001. [1]

“We [need to] wonder whether the sum of all likely fossil fuel demands in the early decades of the [21st] century might not greatly increase the emission of CO2 into the atmosphere, and by doing so bring up average surface temperature uncomfortably close to that rise of 2 °C, which might set in motion the long-term warming-up of the planet.”

While the IPCC had acknowledged by 2001 that historical greenhouse gas emissions had likely already committed some ecosystems to irreversible changes, the predominant view was that a 2 ºC warming limit would limit such changes to acceptable levels in most parts of the world, and that the collapse of large-scale ecosystems, now known as tipping elements, would be unlikely unless warming rose by 3 to 4 degrees.

However, a literature review of recent climate research, as well as the most recent IPCC climate assessment report (2007 Fourth Assessment Report, or AR4) [2], indicates that at least some of the rationale for a 2 ºC guardrail, or warming limit, as well as a peak atmospheric concentration limit of 450 ppm CO2, has failed to take into account key drivers of climate change, resulting in an underestimation of its potential effects at a given temperature.

The AR4 Synthesis Report acknowledged in 2007, for example, that “based on current understanding of climate-carbon cycle feedbacks, model studies suggest that stabilizing CO2 concentrations at, for example, 450 ppm could require cumulative emissions over the 21st century to be less than ~1800 [1370 to 2200] GtCO2, which is about 27% less than the ~2460 [2310 to 2600] GtCO2 determined without consideration of carbon cycle feedbacks.” [italics added] [3] A significant body of research subsequent to AR4, especially with respect to the resilience of natural carbon sinks, has suggested that carbon cycle feedbacks may be more potent than previously thought.

Yet the most significant issue surrounding the 2 ºC warming limit may be the perception among some negotiators that it represents the upper bounds of warming at which disruption of ecosystems and societies would be minimal. Such perception is at odds with most projections; for example, the International Scientific Congress on Climate Change suggested in March that while some societies might be able to cope with a “two-degree world” through aggressive adaptive strategies, impacts could be “significant” even below 2 ºC.

Above that, climate-induced changes “will be difficult for contemporary societies to cope with, and are likely to cause major societal and environmental disruptions”, with capacities for adaptation rapidly declining, and the likelihood of social disruption increasing via food insecurity, water shortages, and health impacts. [4]

But no climate model projects a uniform warming of the Earth; a mean global warming of two degrees is likely to result, for example, in localized warming as low as 0.5 ºC in some areas, and as high as 6 ºC in polar regions. Research, projections, and observations also indicate that 2 ºC of warming could be much more detrimental, on average, to the ocean’s ecosystems than to those on land.

Yesterday UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, whose evening speech signified the beginning of high-level talks in Copenhagen, reignited frustrations among delegates from developing countries when he made it clear that he supported the 2 ºC target and no other, saying that “we may not be able to agree on anything” if multiple warming targets were to be seriously considered. [5]

“The immediacy and scale of the reductions necessary to avoid anything below 4°C, and indeed the human and ecosystem implications of living with 4°C, are beyond anything we have been prepared to countenance.”

—4 Degrees And Beyond Rationale Statement

Notwithstanding the two-degree focus in Copenhagen, many scientists have been researching the potential effects of an average 4 ºC (7.2 ºF) warming, which could lead to a 10-16 ºC warming at the Earth’s polar regions. Earlier this year, a “4 Degrees And Beyond” climate conference focused on such issues, the first conference to do so (earlier post).

The “4 Degrees And Beyond” conference was the second synthesis conference on climate change sponsored by the UK government in the present decade. The first conference, “Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change”, was held in 2005 at the Met Office in Exeter, and focused on pathways to climate stabilization at or below 2 degrees Celsius.

The > 1.5 Degree Target: Small Island States Take On The US, The UNFCCC, And The UK’s Met Office

The acceleration of warming indicators following the IPCC’s release of the Fourth Assessment Report three years ago has spurred calls from both science and policy circles to forgo the two degree guardrail in favor of emissions reduction strategies that would yield an even more stable climate. The most popular maximal warming target to date has been 1.5º C or less, most prominently promoted by the 350.org website.

In the political arena, the 1.5 ºC target has been advanced by the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), which passed a September declaration [6] calling on UNFCCC member states to adopt emissions cuts in Copenhagen that would peak greenhouse gas concentrations by
2015 and then stabilize them at 350 ppm CO2 equivalent by mid-century, requiring an effective decarbonization of developed countries by 2050.

“My guess is that if the same European Ministers who decided, thirteen years ago, that the target ought to be 2 °C would look at the evidence in the last IPCC report, they would have to conclude that a lower target, probably 1.5 °C, is warranted.”

On Tuesday, 8 December, just a day after the Copenhagen talks had commenced, journalists attending an informal briefing in Copenhagen reported that US deputy special climate change envoy Jonathan Pershing—who served as a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report—had dismissed calls to stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide levels at 350 ppm, or about ten percent below current levels, indicating that such a target may already be out of reach. Quipping “We’re stuck”, Pershing forecast that world governments would instead have to adopt aggressive climate adaptation strategies. [8]

The next day, Tuvalu, a nine-atoll country with a population of about twelve thousand, briefly took the spotlight in session when it called for a suspension of negotiations after COP President Connie Hedegaard refused to accept an amendment that would seek to stabilize greenhouse gases at the levels laid out in September’s AOSIS declaration—essentially, the levels that Pershing had rejected.

Although conference leaders soon found a workaround and suspended only the agenda point in question, the proposed amendment split the normally unified G77 + China bloc of developing countries, with least developed countries supporting the amendment and emerging economies firmly against it.

“Madame President, this is not an ego trip for me. I am merely a humble and insignificant employee of the environment department of the government of Tuvalu... We’ve had our proposal [for an agreement that would bind all countries to emissions cuts in service of a 1.5º C warming limit target] on the table for six months. Not the last two days.”

A BBC article [9] upped the stakes on Thursday the 9th with an article on carbon emissions that characterized “the lower target of 1.5 ºC favored by some developing countries” as “virtually impossible”, according to Met Office (UK) research. The article was countered the next day by an AOSIS statement that its proposed mitigation path would be expected to temporarily result in average temperatures of slightly more than 1.5 ºC at peak, yet stabilize them at the target by the end of the century.

By Saturday, however, an emotional but fruitless plea from Tuvalu delegate Ian Fry to President Hedegaard reflected the lack of support among member states for an agreement which would require all signatory countries to curb emissions.

“Reasons For Concern” About Climate Adaptation

Discussions of practical or appropriate emissions targets at COP 15 have been further complicated by the difficulty of assessing society’s ability to adapt to the effects of climate change. Research on human responses to climate change has so far been largely focused on efforts to mitigate the amount of future emissions, as opposed to adaptive actions.

In an essay published in the current issue of Environment and Planning A, researchers W. Neil Adger and Jon Barnett lay out four “reasons for concern about adaptation” to climate change, to counter “what we perceive to be a widespread belief that adaptation will be smooth, cheap, and easy to implement.”

Required rates of decarbonization with the potential to
achieve a maximal average 2 ºC rise in worldwide temperatures,
assuming peak years of 2011, 2015, and 2020. Source: WGBU. Click to enlarge.

Opportunities to adapt to the effects of climate change may be limited. “The scale of change and interconnectedness of impacts”, write the authors, “may be such that the window of opportunity for adaptation is smaller than previously imagined.” Given the failure of international GHG emissions reduction frameworks such as the Kyoto Protocol to produce meaningful results, as well as the projected rise of greenhouse gases in the future, “there will have to be a major turnaround in policy, planning, and behavior to avoid an atmospheric concentration that poses a significant risk of global mean warming of 2 ºC or beyond.”

Adding to the challenge is the envisioned rate of reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions after they peak, projected to be “many times greater in scale” than historical emissions reductions associated with economic downturns or technological breakthroughs. Although there has been a sharp uptick in research on the potential impacts of a global mean warming of 4 ºC or more, this “new realism about climate change... has yet to pervade thinking about adaptation.”

Adaptive capacities do not guarantee adaptation to climate change. Although developed countries are generally considered to have more resilience in the face of climate change as compared to developing countries, the apparent inability of developed countries to leverage existing adaptive capacity in the face of climate change, as indicated by their historical response to natural disasters, has been noted by researchers. Robert Repetto of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies argues in the seminal 2008 paper The Climate Crisis And The Adaption Myth[10] that adaptive responses to the effects of climate change can be either anticipatory or reactive, with anticipatory responses having the potential to mitigate the cost of adaptation.

“Unfortunately,” Repetto observes, “experience shows that in the United States, responses to disaster are mainly reactive, often characterized by inattention beforehand and over-response afterwards.” Reactive adaptation “would be likely to lag persistently behind the emerging risks”, with the resulting adaptive gap dependent in part on the rate at which temperature changes occurred.

“Adaptation to climate risks may be punctuated, messy, more costly than we are willing to pay, and at odds with legitimate values and strongly held conviction concerning place and identity. The future will be a testing time.”

Public and private bodies charged with adaptation have often failed, in Repetto’s assessment, to deal with present risks and emerging future risks. In storm preparedness, for example, New York City’s building codes and flood risk maps are based on historical and existing risks rather than projected future risks. Given that flood risks were clearly inadequate in Louisiana and New Orleans when Hurricane Katrina made landfall in August 2005, Repetto concludes that “to say that the United States can adapt to climate change does not imply that the United states will adapt”.

“There are three adaption options: protect, accommodate, or retreat.”

—Victorian Coastal Council, 2008

However, some planning departments are incorporating adaptive measures into their recommendations. In Australia, for example, the Victorian Coastal Strategy of 2008 [11] has recommended a policy of planning for sea-level rise of not less than 0.8 meters by 2100, and that policy be revised as needed.

Adaptive capacities may be undermined by unsustainable actions. Actions which are already in place, yet which are not sustainable, may well lead to “maladaptation”: a policy, for example, which secures water supply inefficiently, leading to the unnecessary production of greenhouse gases, when more efficient policies could be implemented.

Support for climate adaptation policies may be difficult to secure. Adger and Barnett reason that the relative success, failure, and trade-offs of adaptation to climate change can only be measured within a social context; policy which appears to be sound as an adaptive response may be rejected by those for whom it is designed to benefit.

“For example”, they point out, “the widely held idea that relocating populations from islands can save them from the likely impacts of climate change on morbidity and mortality must be set alongside the significance of islands and their local cultures to their inhabitants.”

Such issues have already been rendered acute in the Pacific island nation of Kiribati, which lost two uninhabited islets, Tebua Tarawa and Abanuea, to sea-level rise in 1999. Some of Kiribati’s water wells have become brackish with seawater, and one village has already been abandoned, delegation chief Betarim Rimon recently told the Associated Press. In addition to short-term measures such as seawall construction, he said, the nation has a midterm plan to consolidate its population of 110,000, now spread across 32 atolls, on three islands that would be raised up if international aid could be secured.

“Nobody in this room would want to leave their homeland,” Kiribati’s foreign secretary Tessie Lambourne, commented last week at a side event in Copenhagen. “It is our spiritual connection to our ancestors.
We do not want to leave our homeland.” [12]

Will the basic fail is they want amercans to use less and get less yet at the same time buy more of thier crap and spend alot more money doing it.

Instead what is happening is americans are simply saving and buying less. And this makes everyone else upset.

They want us to drive less and use less gas yet they want us to buy more cars from them.

They want us to eat less but buy more of thier food and sell them more of our food.

They want us to keep taking in 15 million immigrants a year yet of course we cant charge em a co2 fee for thier pop moving to us even tho it costs a huge amount of co2 a year because we are increasing in pop instead of decreasing as we should be.

In short they want us to keep doing everything that makes us pump out co2 like crazy and yet not.

Global warming will not affect all countries in the same way. Plus 2C to 4C may even be beneficial (for a short time) to countries or part of countries North of 50.

That (and Alberta's financially successful tar sands on-going polluting operations) may be the main reasons why Canada's current PM is so much against any reduction in GHG.

With +2C to +4C, most of Canada's Northland would become much more productive. Warmer weather is normally associated with higher humidity and more rain/snow falls. Hydro plants could produce more electricity while less would be required for home heating. Canada could export huge amount of fresh water to its drying neighbour. Clean electricity and clean water could become major exports and eventually replace dirty oil from tar sand operations.

Canada's agriculture could produce much more and could also become a source of major exports.

Rising sea level would not affect Canada's population that much. Higher lands are everywhere.

By exception, Canada may have a lot more to gain than to lose with a reasonable global warming level of 2C to 4C.

Well as I said years ago the fact is too many stand to gain from or just plain WANT climate change. They arnt realy going to try and stop it so much as benifit from it and from the fear and violence it brings.

I know facts don't count for much here but the rebranding of 'global warming' to 'climate change' was actually initiated by a spin doctor working for George Dubya Bush. Climate change was seen as less scary and confronting for the public.I expect to see you correct this in future Goracle.

Interestingly, the same spin doctor was initially a climate change sceptic but is now campaigning for action on climate change in the US.

I'm with Tim Flannery in that I wish the sceptics were right and climate change science was just a massive conspiracy but part of being a grown-up is that you have to face difficult truths and deal with them.

critta said: I know facts don't count for much here but the rebranding of 'global warming' to 'climate change' was actually initiated by a spin doctor working for George Dubya Bush. Climate change was seen as less scary and confronting for the public.I expect to see you correct this in future Goracle.

What, exactly did I state that needs correcting? I never mentioned who did the rebranding of Earth's natural climate cycles. I expect you to brush up on your reading comprehension, critta. And, yes, take you own advice and correct yourself please.

AGW and its proponents are collapsing like a house of cards because of hubris and inability to admit gross error even when the facts are made plain. As with the Maldives:

Morner et al, 2004, "were unable to detect any traces of a recent sea level rise." In fact, they say they "found quite clear morphological indications of a recent fall in sea level." Based on (1) general island morphology, (2) sailing routes in the Vavu Atoll, (3) the "reef woman" [a coral-encrusted skeleton] at Lhosfushi, and (4) the morphology of the "Queen's Bath" Lake on Hithadhoo, they conclude that "some 100 to 30 years ago, sea level was 20-30 cm higher than it is today," and that "in the 1970s to early 1980s, sea level experienced a general fall of the order of 20-30 cm."

Morner, N.-A., Tooley, M. and Possnert, G. 2004. New perspectives for the future of the Maldives. Global and Planetary Change 40: 177-182.

Growing up and being adult both arrive through humility and being able to say, "We were wrong."

The mystery of the accusations of Russian involvement in the Climategate scandal suddenly deepened yesterday, when a key Russian ministry accused the UK Met Office Hadley Centre, closely partnered with the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU), of misreporting Russian weather-station data in order to allege warming trends that, the Russians now say, their data do not support.

According to an article in Kommersant, reproduced here at RIA Novosti (and quoted here at The Air Vent), the Institute for Economic Analysis (IEA), in Moscow, issued a report Tuesday alleging that the Hadley Centre, when compiling its contribution to the Hadley-CRU Temperature (HadCRUT) surveys, used data from a select 25% of Russian weather stations.

The problem: the remaining stations, covering 40% of Russian territory, have shown no substantial warming in recent decades. Furthermore, the stations selected mostly include those with incomplete datasets.

IEA also specifically alleged that the stations selected by the Hadley Centre were in large population centers and thus subject to urban heat island (UHI) effects.

I believe the official analysis of "Climate Gate" was that it was embarrassing at the most but, tells nothing of the tons of other data both incidental and direct that has been collected around the world by glaciologists, botanists, entomologists, oceanographers, wildlife biologists, climatologists, atmospheric scientists, marine biologists, social anthropologists, paleontologists, cultural historians, you name it. I'm not looking forward to my children or grand kids having do deal with this crap even though I might be dead before the worst even begins. But I am tired of pinheads trying to put this off to some kind of conspiracy for what, some clown in a suit can collect another day of exceptional stock returns? Power?
by discrediting the current politician in office?
Then let's play Dick Cheney's 2% card. If there is a 2% chance this might be true, then we better be balls to the wall trying to stop it. How's that. Personally I feel the die is cast. It takes 50-70 years to cycle atmospheric gasses so the temps are going up more co2 or not, then as I've said in other posts, methane in permafrost is going to take over for us.

It is sort of fun to read Goracle's posts. Most are right out of the "rights" talking points. I have to chuckle. I know I get pretty emotional about this stuff, and you'll have to excuse me. I have traveled a bit and have a couple of great, smart kids. I see this as a threat to our way of life and to the memory of the way this country and the world once was. To think that my kids "may" have to exist in a different world than I did,makes me angry to say the least. I have known and met a lot of people in the field who have first hand knowledge of these changes taking place. My best friend died studying polar bears and the threat of receding ice. So to say this is personal is an understatement. I hope I do not offend because we all have the right to our opinion but to protect a force that has no stake in the coming change is a farce at the least.

jeffa said: To think that my kids "may" have to exist in a different world than I did,makes me angry to say the least.

It's good to hear that the $12 TRILLION debt that the U.S. now has is angering you. And that congress increasing the debt limit by another $2 TRILLION angers you even more. Your children can NOT afford to pay back the debt that republicans and democrats have amassed yet most of us go on, ignorantly, praising a government that is teetering on bankruptcy, spending (vote buying) faster than ever before.

Regarding your statement "Most are right out of the 'rights' talking points." Most of your posts are right out of the "left's" talknig points. Does that make you correct? Of course not. And when the "right" as you put it, asks for data why are "scientists" (the left???) breaking the law to stop full disclosure? Funny how the "left" doesn't question law breaking when it supports their cause. The "left" won't discuss the "science" because they have no basis in fact - only emotional (as jeffa says - "anger") arguments.

Please read the news article that I posted jeffa. Calling it "talking points" doesn't make it so. Calling it "talking points" doesn't dismiss the accusation that Russian temperatures have shown NO increase in decades. Refute it with facts, not name calling.

Once again, to the "left" name calling = science. This is why the public at large no longer believes the scare tactics of the Globalwarmists.

Goracle you have me wrong. I'm not praising anybody.
Nobody I've seen has the balls to do what's necessary as far as I'm concerned and I don't give a hoot about the debt. What's an economy without a world that can support it. When I said "may" I was being facetious and mocking you. And as I said in my first post. I think the
Cheney Doctrine is called for in this case. If there's a chance of the worst, even a 2% chance then we just stop dicking around and drop the "cap and Trade" crap and get down to it. When you look at the dough we've spent on Iraq, the Bailout, the Stimulus Package and now the pending Insurance Company Gimme, we could have funded factories to build a PHEV car for every man woman and child in this country, built a wind farm outside every city over 200,000 people and kicked Rush Lintball in the sack. I'm tired of the worthless, actionless, congress, the power hungry senate, lobbyists, a blind half of the population, people who think we can march into the future doing the same old crap that's gotten us to where we are now. People who think we can still burn fossil fuels to no avail. Even without any data it would seem common sense would tell us that we put one hell of alot of GHG up there. Ever drive through any one of a hundred major cities in this country during rush hour. Ever been to other major cities like Tokyo or Rio or Belorizonte or Singapore and seen the traffic. The polution in China's larger cities? How can we NOT be doing something? Please.
I'm bored. This obviously is wasted time. No one is saying anything we don't already know. As long as money talks no one is going to listen.

Goracle, how can you say the right asks for data? Anybody with the internets can get on line and see more data than they'll know what to do with. And if you do I think the weight of data supporting climate change or warming or left wing talking points is overwelming compared to the 149 "scientists" who think everything is due to sunspots or UFO's.

I'd like to know who this "public at large" is that out little Goracle refers to? Opinion polls from around the world show a very strong acceptance of AGW. One in America[A country with only 4% of the world's population.] is the any stiff resistance, and even then 2/3 of Americans believe global warming is a fact even if 1/3 of those think it is due to natural causes, rather than manmade causes.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/07/global.warming.poll/index.html

And the only reason the numbers are THAT bad in America is....(how shall I put this?)...How many Americans thought GWB would make a good President?

You're right on ai vin.
What pray tell can be the difference between the U.S. and the other countries that accept the data? Hmmmmm...
could it be the number of lobbyists and capitalists? All those good folk with our best interests at heart? Everyone knows that whats good for the corporation must be good for the public, right? And gee, where does a large percent of they're earnings go? To sway the public and take control of the message.

In October, the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press said its poll found that only 35 percent of Americans considered global warming to be a very serious problem, a decline from April 2008. Thirty percent called it "somewhat serious."

In a poll by The Associated Press and Stanford University, published this month, more than half said they would not support a "cap-and-trade" program to reduce global warming gases if it raised their energy bills by $10 a month. Cap-and-trade would essentially allow industries to buy and sell the right to pollute.

However ten months from now the world's first mass produced PHEV hits the dealer floors. THAT is leadership.

"If the Hadley data is cooked, then why does it agree with data from other sources?"

"...why does it agree with data from other sources" that we are not allowed to see, and "scientists" break the law to hide. The data doesn't agree if the data is not made public in order to see if it agrees. Simply becasue Al Gore said it doensn't make it true.